The moral voter: Bishop offers guidance to faithful Catholic voters

[Motherwit]

How does one work out what is a churchmen’s opinion and what is moral teaching? If I can scan through Laudato si and pick and choose what I think is opinion and what is moral teaching then I can go through Humanae Vitae and do the same. That’s the logic. If it is up to individuals to make those choices what’s the point of the Church?

In Laudato si Francis quotes John Paul II from his first encyclical Redemptoris hominus.

5. Saint John Paul II became increasingly concerned about this issue. In his first Encyclical he warned that human beings frequently seem “to see no other meaning in their natural environment than what serves for immediate use and consumption”. Subsequently, he would call for a global ecological conversion. At the same time, he noted that little effort had been made to “safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic human ecology”. The destruction of the human environment is extremely serious, not only because God has entrusted the world to us men and women, but because human life is itself a gift which must be defended from various forms of debasement. Every effort to protect and improve our world entails profound changes in “lifestyles, models of production and consumption, and the established structures of power which today govern societies”. Authentic human development has a moral character. It presumes full respect for the human person, but it must also be concerned for the world around us and “take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system”. Accordingly, our human ability to transform reality must proceed in line with God’s original gift of all that is.

Again, while stewardship of the world is important, it seems we have forgotten that the reason to care for the earth is to make it a better place for PEOPLE.

And because people occupy the whole globe we are responsible for how our lifestyle choices impact upon the environment everywhere. Part of our ecological conversion is accepting that reality. It isn’t all about me and my needs alone. John Paul’s papacy taught us more clearly about social sin, the structures of sin, the culture of death that contribute to make evil nations and our obligation to resist those structures. He describes the concern among ordinary people about the immorality of these structures as a ‘greater moral awareness’. If we can easily say I deny that call because it’s just a churchmans opinion, what is the point of the Church?

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

These are valid questions that need to be answered by deniers if they are to have real credibility to fellow believers. If the authority of the Church is in question on morality, what is the point of the Church at all?

What is being denied here are your interpretations of what the church teaches. It is not the church’s authority to teach on morality that is questioned; it is your understanding of it.

That’s just condescending and distorted. There is absolutely no doubt about that the Church is teaching a dire moral obligation to put the environment and it’s recovery at the forefront of our duties as Catholics.

Do you reject that? Do you deny that man and greed have caused huge ecological destruction? If so as OneSheep says, you are being faithful to some other source of moral gauge, not the Church.

 

[upant]

And because people occupy the whole globe we are responsible for how our lifestyle choices impact upon the environment everywhere.

so why does the accord allow China and India to build new coal plants for 10 years if the emissions are such an issue that it impacts the environment everywhere? doesn’t China and India have the same responsibilities? why have emissions increased overall?

it is simply a wealth distribution scheme.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ender]

There is absolutely no doubt about that the Church is teaching a dire moral obligation to put the environment and it’s recovery at the forefront of our duties as Catholics.

And again the specific claim made to start this discussion, and which cannot be reasonably defended, is changed into a generic observation that can…sort of. Yes, of course we have a moral obligation to care for the environment, that, however does not mean it should be at the “forefront” of our duties ahead of, say, caring for the poor and healing the sick.

More to the point, this started out to be a claim that we have a moral obligation to believe the claims of AGW are scientifically accurate, and we are to believe it because the Spirit reveals the secrets of science to the bishops - which is something the church herself would never claim.

Do you deny that man and greed have caused huge ecological destruction?

And again the original claim is unrecognizable in this mutation. What I denied was that we have a moral obligation to believe AGW is a valid theory, and specifically that it was any kind of a sin for the president to have withdrawn us from the Paris Accords.

If so as OneSheep says, you are being faithful to some other source of moral gauge, not the Church.

Disagreeing with you two is not at all the same as disagreeing with the church.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

And because people occupy the whole globe we are responsible for how our lifestyle choices impact upon the environment everywhere.

so why does the accord allow China and India to build new coal plants for 10 years if the emissions are such an issue that it impacts the environment everywhere? doesn’t China and India have the same responsibilities? why have emissions increased overall?

it is simply a wealth distribution scheme.

The International Energy Agency. “Global CO2 emissions from coal use declined by almost 200 million tonnes (Mt), or 1.3%, from 2018 levels, offsetting increases in emissions from oil and natural gas. Advanced economies saw their emissions decline by over 370 Mt (or 3.2%), with the power sector responsible for 85% of the drop. Milder weather in many large economies compared with 2018 had an important effect on the trends, reducing emissions by around 150 Mt.”

This year it is predicted that Covid19 will result in a worldwide reduction.

China has at least come to the table. It’s CO2 emissions per capita at 8 is half of that of the US at 16. It is fair enough that China is given time to manage its huge economy in a new direction given that fact.

For all that we can legitimately condemn about China, it’s commitment to reducing CO2 emissions and evolving society away from energy dependence, is very commendable.

China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies

 

[upant]

For all that we can legitimately condemn about China, it’s commitment to reducing CO2 emissions and evolving society away from energy dependence, is very commendable

Really

China’s commitment to reduce carbon emissions is hardly reason to celebrate

This piece says we are still increasing and China and India will continue to increase for 10 years.

It is a scam, wealth redistribution

 

[Motherwit]

You haven’t read that article without bias and prudently. I believe you are relying on the headline only to prove a point. I invite you to read it and cite statements that support your position.

 

[pnewton]

so why does the accord allow China and India to build new coal plants for 10 years if the emissions are such an issue that it impacts the environment everywhere?

Everyone is doing it? Is that why pollution is not a moral issue? Abortion is legal throughout Europe and even forced in China. Is that an argument to allow it?

 

[OneSheep]

From the original article:

Catholics, insisted Bishop Robert W. McElroy, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego, cannot be single-issue voters, focused exclusively on abortion, say, or climate change, immigration, religious liberty or poverty.

Also important, the bishop insisted: the personalities of candidates. He urged voters to examine politicians’ character, intelligence and even political abilities.

“It does little good to elect a saint who echoes Catholic social teaching on every issue,” he said, “if that candidate does not have the competence to carry out his duties effectively and thereby enhance the common good.”

While it remains to be seen whether or not the justices picked by Donald Trump truly will “enhance the common good” (they seem to be heavily plutocratic, which is what both major parties have also become) we can at least hope that in the near future they will establish the rights of the unborn. I can see God’s hand in this possibility.

In the mean time I think it is pretty clear from both the debate and the state of protests in our cities that the current president has set a very contentious tone for the nation. Indeed, the debate this week was a manifestation of 4 years of angry rhetoric used to “energize the base”. Many Democrats have done no better in mindlessly reacting instead of taking time to reflect, forgive, and turn the tone to one of civility and peace. There is plenty of blame to go around, and I am not innocent.

I am hopeful that we can turn this nation into something that is more charitable to everyone, especially the poor and marginalized. If such an effort is only economic, and does not involve an inclusive attitude toward all races and welcoming arms to those escaping horror in other nations, we are not the light of Christ. “Wealth for the sake of all” in our current plutocracy simply means “more wealth for the wealthy”. Frankly, I see nothing especially commendable about it.

 

[upant]

You haven’t read that article without bias and prudently.

bias? what is hard to understand about increasing emissions in an environment where supposedly we need a reduction.

Xi also promised that China’s CO2 emissions would actually stop rising by 2030,

the accord is a failure

the world will miss the goal of holding the rise in average global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

the emissions will continue to rise and it is mostly china’s fault

In fact, emissions are still rising (not all China’s fault), and there’s no chance that they will start heading down soon (mostly China’s fault).

what is hard to understand about China’s rapidly increasing emissions?

China is a rapidly industrialising country that already accounts for the largest share of global CO2 emissions — 28 percent — and it is still growing them rapidly.

really no commitment to helping reduce emissions when it supposedly counts.

What Xi’s 2030 promise actually meant was that China’s emissions will go on growing for another 10 years. So wave good-bye to the hope of holding the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, and say hello to bigger storms, more wildfires, worse droughts and killer heat waves in some places.

they won’t even make net-zero until 10 years later than the consensus long-term goal

Xi’s other promise — carbon neutral by 2060 — is even worse news. “Net-zero by 2050 is the consensus long-term goal shared by every major country except the United States. ”

because of this

That virtually guarantees that the world will also miss the never-exceed goal of “well below 2-degree rise.”

and the bottom line

he dares not slow the economic growth even to avoid a climate disaster.

yet, The USA dropping the accord is the problem even though we are decreasing emissions

The United States is a mature industrial power with relatively high emissions (15 percent of world emissions), but they are dropping slowly despite Trump’s efforts to revive the coal industry.

no china is the issue

how can you read any good into what China is doing?

 

[upant]

Everyone is doing it?

most are missing their goal, yes.

Is that why pollution is not a moral issue?

pollution is not a moral issue, it is a byproduct of increasing the quality of life, or is china immoral for increasing pollution for the next ten years? everyone pollutes, are we all immoral?

Abortion is legal throughout Europe and even forced in China. Is that an argument to allow it?

nonsense comparison. the deliberate death of a child isn’t a byproduct but a willing act.

 

[pnewton]

pollution is not a moral issue

Pope Francis tells us to protect the Earth.
Life still matters after birth.
Thus he wrote Laudato Si,
Therefore I must disagree.

 

[upant]

Therefore I must disagree.

we all are part of the problem, are we all immoral for causing the pollution we generate?

 

[OneSheep]

Pope Francis tells us to protect the Earth.
Life still matters after birth.
Thus he wrote Laudato Si,
Therefore I must disagree.

Send that one to the Papa!

we all are part of the problem, are we all immoral for causing the pollution we generate?

Technically, yes, but we all breathe, so we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so it is not so much any greenhouse gas that is immoral but the excessive gasses causing more warming. Elimination of greenhouse gasses is impossible and not even healthy. Reduction is key, and there are a lot of issues to iron out in future talks. Even if Trump doesn’t win the presidency, it would be a wise POTUS from either party to “sick” Trump on a future negotiation that we want to be very hard-line. Trouble is, Donald would be going hard-line for increasing greenhouse gasses!

 

[pnewton]

Send that one to the Papa!

In years past, I have taken defense in frivolity during contentious political squabbling. This year is a lulu.

 

[Motherwit]

Motherwit:

There is absolutely no doubt about that the Church is teaching a dire moral obligation to put the environment and it’s recovery at the forefront of our duties as Catholics.

And again the specific claim made to start this discussion, and which cannot be reasonably defended, is changed into a generic observation that can…sort of. Yes, of course we have a moral obligation to care for the environment, that, however does not mean it should be at the “forefront” of our duties ahead of, say, caring for the poor and healing the sick.

The original specific claim can of course be defended by virtue of the Church’s teaching regarding social sin and its roots in personal sin. Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement citing his ‘America First’ agenda which rejects any responsibility to the global common good. He repeatedly rejects any sort of accountability to such a body in service to a global common good.

“International negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good. Those who will have to suffer the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility. Even as this Encyclical was being prepared, the debate was intensifying. We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays”. – Laudato si n169

“A global consensus is essential for confronting the deeper problems, which cannot be resolved by unilateral actions on the part of individual countries.” – LS n164

 

[Motherwit]

More to the point, this started out to be a claim that we have a moral obligation to believe the claims of AGW are scientifically accurate, and we are to believe it because the Spirit reveals the secrets of science to the bishops - which is something the church herself would never claim.

Pope John Paul II provides wise counsel on this type of denial. 25 August, 1999

"As the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia recalls: “Whenever the Church speaks of situations of sin, or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behaviour of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins… The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals” (n. 16).

It is nevertheless an indisputable fact, as I have often pointed out, that the interdependence of social, economic and political systems creates multiple structures of sin in today’s world. (cf. Sollicitudo rei socialis, n. 36; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1869). Evil exerts a frightening power of attraction which causes many types of behaviour to be judged “normal” and “inevitable”. Evil then grows, having devastating effects on consciences, which become confused and even incapable of discernment. If one then thinks of the structures of sin that hinder the development of the peoples most disadvantaged from the economic and political standpoint (cf. Sollicitudo rei socialis, n. 37), one might almost surrender in the face of a moral evil which seems inevitable. So many people feel powerless and bewildered before an overwhelming situation from which there seems no escape. But the proclamation of Christ’s victory over evil gives us the certainty that even the strongest structures of evil can be overcome and replaced by “structures of good”"

There is absolutely no justification for ‘doing nothing’ as a policy. It is the result of blindness and indifference that putting money over people breeds in a person. A moral evil.

 

[Ender]

Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement citing his ‘America First’ agenda which rejects any responsibility to the global common good.

“America First” is not “America Only”. Your assertion is your invention only. Nor does the citation from Laudato si make your point. It says putting national interest above global interest can be inappropriate. It assuredly does not say this was such an occasion. Nor could it inasmuch as these are matters of judgment, not doctrine, and the responsibility for making such decisions properly lies with those who have responsibility for their nation’s well being.

There is absolutely no justification for ‘doing nothing’ as a policy. It is the result of blindness and indifference that putting money over people breeds in a person. A moral evil.

Not doing what you want is not the same as doing nothing, which is in fact preferable if the alternative is worse…and that is a judgment individuals have to make. What I object to is when one person judges another’s intent based on a difference of opinion about policy. It is acceptable to oppose and reject a person’s choices. It is neither to imply his intentions were sinful.

 

[Feanor2]

So you mean that during the several decades of the Arian crisis, when the priests and bishops were teaching and declaring heresy to the people, since the Spirit was guiding the Church it’s all ok. I mean, hey, after all, a couple of generations later the heresy was gone. . .oh wait, it didn’t go away on its own. We had one courageous bishop who then convinced another. . .we had the laity rise up and refuse to consider the ‘new teaching’.

So maybe today the Spirit is guiding us to ‘hold fast’. To push back. To reject wrong teachings and proclaim the Truth. Maybe now, just as then, there will be even those in power who are going the wrong way and even teaching wrong teachings, and the Spirit will have them resisted and maybe years after you and I are gone the Spirit will have guided the people back to Truth.

Yes, the Spirit is guiding the Church. That doesn’t mean that at any given point any individual or individuals within the Church might not go ‘off the rails’ and that wrongs which have spread might not have to be righted. We don’t live in a magic Spirit Bubble where we can chant, “no matter what is going on, it’s all good right now because it’s Spirit led’.

And this is why we have Schneider, Burke, Muller, and Vigano right?

Not to mention Churchmilltant, OnePeterFive, the Remnant?

Maybe eve the SSPX. . . .

 

[Shakuhachi]

An Online Dialogue on​

Faithful Citizenship

Moral and Political Choices for Catholics in the 2020 Election ​